Frequently Asked Questions... Here are some of the issues we are asked about with reference to the Beach family... 1.
Who
were the parents/ancestors of the New Haven Beach brothers? 1. Who were the parents/ancestors of the New Haven Beach brothers? While numerous claims have been made over the years, the ancestry of Richard1, John1 and Thomas Beach1 of New Haven, Connecticut, has yet to be established. This means, in turn, it is impossible to link them to any of the English Beach/Beech/de la Beche lines. The most that can be said with confidence at this time is that Richard1, John1 and Thomas Beach1 are on record as being "cousins" of John Moss, William Iles and his brother, Thomas Iles; three other early settlers in New Haven. For more on this topic, see the article entitled Beach Of New Haven on the "Sample Items" page. 2. Is there a Beach coat of arms? Several coats of arms have been used by various Beach families in England down through the centuries. Unless and until it is proven that the Beaches of New Haven descend from one of the English lines, however, use of any of these coats of arms would be inappropriate. 3. What is the origin of the name(s) "Beach" and/or "Beech" and why the difference in spelling? The surname "Beach" is identical in spelling and pronunciation with the noun denoting the shore of a body of water. The surname "Beech" is similarly identical in spelling and pronunciation with the noun denoting trees of the genus Fagus. Whether as nouns or as surnames, the two words are usually considered homonyms, i.e., having the same sound. It is perhaps more accurate, however, to call them homophones, i.e., having the same sound but wholly different in meaning, spelling and/or origin. "Beach" and "Beech" as Common Nouns As a common noun, the word "beach" is said by one authority to be "of obscure origin", with the earliest forms given as "bayche" and "baich", The American Heritage Dictonary of the English Language, p. 114. In contrast, the common noun "beech" is said by the same authority to derive from the Anglo-Saxon "bece" via the Middle English "beche." These, in turn, are believed to have their origins in the ancient Indo-European root "bhago", meaning a beech tree. Since ancient Germanic peoples would often carve runic letters on staffs made from beech wood, the same Indo-European root is also thought to be the source of the Anglo-Saxon word "boc", meaning a document or composition, which evolved into the modern word "book", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, pp. 118, 1508. Note, however, that most dictionaries of Anglo-Saxon define "bece" [varient = "baece," "bec," etc.] as meaning "stream," "brook," and/or the valley through which such watercourses run. For example, Bosworth and Toller's An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, (1898) page b0074, entry 15, says:
See also: David Crystal, The Stories of English, Overlook Press (2004), p. 69, in which "baece, bece" are defined as "stream, valley" and are the source of such modern place-name elements as "-bach, -badge, -bage, -batch, -beach, [and] -beach." Why the same Anglo-Saxon word was apparently used for both the tree and watercourse is unclear. "Beach" and "Beech" As Surnames Because of their similar spelling and pronunciation, the surnames "Beach" and "Beech" are generally assumed to derive from either or both of the common nouns above. Sometimes the analysis is more akin to folklore than etymology, e.g.:
Others come to essentially similar conclusions, through what appears a more scholarly route, e.g.:
Still others claim the surnames "Beach" and "Beech" are of Franco-Norman origin; a common early form being "de la Beche". One authority says that "beche", in French, means literally a "spade". Assuming that the family name is of French or Norman origin, then the significance of the earliest Anglo-Saxon and/or Old English forms may be questionable. Genealogist Gustav Anjou, in a history of the family, noted that:
While Anjou's research often leaves much to be desired, his observation in this instance appears to have some merit. In British usage the noun "beck" means a small stream or brook. The word is traceable to the Indo-European root "bhegw" - to run away, as in running water - which in Old Norse became "bekkr", a stream, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, p p. 117, 1508. Another source says the term derives from and/or is related to the Middle English "bek" and Anglo Saxon "becc" and means a small brook, especially one with a stony bed. By association the term also refers to the valley through which such a stream flows, Websters New International Dictionary. Under such circumstances it is difficult to give any definitive explanation of either surname's origin and/or meaning. It is tempting to suggest that "beck", a brook or stream with a stony bed, is in some way related to "beach", meaning the stony or sandy shoreline of any body of water. It is still unclear, however, how either term could be related to "beech" or its varients which refer to the trees of that name. Indulging in what is admittedly pure speculation, perhaps the strong and straight grained wood of the beech tree was favored for making wooden spades or shovels [Fr. "beche"] used to gather sand and gravel from the beaches of becks! There remains the question whether Beach and Beech are simply varient spellings of the "same" family name, or distinct names for two "different" families, despite their similarity of pronunciation. It is, of course, highly unlikely there was ever a single, grand ancestor of all present day Beaches and/or Beeches. Rather, as suggested above, both names probably came into spontaneous and independent use by different persons in a number of locales, the same as there were undoubtedly many unrelated blacksmiths who took the name "Smith"; unrelated sons of men named John who became Johnsons; etc. To this extent each "Beach" and/or "Beech" line which cannot yet be linked with another may be considered a distinct family. Still, it is clear that both spellings, plus others, have been used more or less interchangably by members of the same family. Not until the 1800's does it appear one spelling or the other became "standard" or "preferred" by a given branch, with that of "Beach" being far more common. For example, in the early New Haven records, as transcribed by Charles Hoadly, the first reference to Richard Beach on June 4, 1639, spells the name just so - "Beach", Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, pp. 13, 17. This spelling is used in all entries until October 6, 1645, when reference is first made to Richard "Beech". Thereafter, the double-e form predominates, not only for Richard, but brothers John and Thomas as well. Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, p. 170 ff. As another example, the gravestone of Deacon John Beach3, John2, Thomas1, who died in 1773, clearly spells his last name as "Beech", although the majority of his descendants since that time have used the "Beach" spelling. Such examples confirm Anjou's own observation that "... the name has been spelled by various members of the same family, both Beach and Beech, and almost all writers or compilers of local histories, parish registers, etc. have found it necessary to treat the two names as one family." While "Beach" and "Beech" are the most common spellings today, the old records, principally English, contain still other varients, e.g., Beche, Beache, Beeche, Beeach, etc. 4. Which is the largest branch of the New Haven Beach family? It seems clear that John Beach1 has the highest number of descendants; Thomas1 the next highest; and Richard1 the least. For example, the editors of the original Beach Family Magazine wrote that "... we had on Feb. 20, 1928, 3700 of descendants of John, 2750 of the descendants of Thomas, [and] 1000 of the descendants of Richard..." Our own count shows a similar ratio, i.e., as of August, 2005, we have documented over 7800 descendants of John1, over 4700 descendants of Thomas1, and over 1800 descendants of Richard1. The simple explanation for these differences is that John1 had more sons who married and fathered children than either of his brothers, giving his branch of the family a sizable "head start." We have not yet found any relationship between the Beach brothers of New Haven and Beach/Beech families found in colonial Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas. The one exception is, of course, the Beaches of colonial New Jersey who descend from either Benjamin2, John1, or Zophar2, Thomas1. 6. Didn't John Beach1 wed Mary Staples, daughter of Thomas Staples of New Haven? The short answer is "No." Instead, this "myth" is the result of confusing John Beach1 with his son, John Beach, Jr.2 At the birth of his son Benjamin, in 1674, the wife of John Beach1 is called simply "Mary," with no maiden name given. The problem arises because Savage's Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Vol. I, p. 144, claims John Beach1 "m. a d. of Thomas Staples, of Fairfield." In fact, however, it was son John Beach, Jr.2, John1 who married, as his first wife, Hannah [not Mary] Staples, the daughter of Thomas Staples. Even so, many still persist in identifying the wife of John as a supposed "Mary Staples." Suffice it to say Thomas Staples of Fairfield is not known to have even had a daughter Mary; much less one old enough to be the wife of John Beach1. More compelling, however, is the fact that John, Jr.2 is on record as marrying Hannah Staples. If the myth about "Mary Staples" were true, then John, Jr.2 would have wed his maternal aunt, i.e., his mother's sister! Given that the New England Puritans would have considered a marriage between such closely related partners as incestuous, it follows that the wife of John Beach1 could not be the daughter of Thomas Staples. The original Beach Family Magazine (1926-1932) was and remains an excellent source of information on the first six generations of the New Haven Beach family. Nevertheless, it has its share of errors and omissions. To take but one example, the Magazine gives only two children to Timothy Beach5, Joseph4, Ephraim3, Nathaniel2, John1, even though our own research shows this to be one of the largest branches of the family, with over 400 descendants traced thus far.
|
|
[Home]
[Subscription Information] [Write Us] We would like to acknowledge the contributions of our son, Joshua D.S.
Beach, in the development and maintenance of this site.
|